Correspondence

In view of the high level of logged activity in ‘blog vs BBC’ actual correspondence will be separately recorded here _
it should be noted that online correspondence with the BBC is usually channeled through a ‘BBC controlled environment’ which is comprised of different forms created specifically for various types of contact _ i.e. ‘general comments’ ‘queries’ ‘complaints’ etc  _  therefore posts on this page will contain a reference to which type of connection was used to interface with the BBC _

it should also be noted that BBC makes special point of ‘reserving the Right’ to republish any message sent to the Corporation through these forms _  by contrast and in keeping with the publicly Open format used on this blog_ anti-BBCTrust reserves the same Right_ but to republish ALL correspondence received from the BBC _ though all BBC staff details will NOT be published _
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

# 160512 _ complaints form on BBC blogs and comments
this is to initiate a formal complaint against a moderation decision made on comment #52 made by antiBBCTrust on the article ‘Children’s shows to leave BBC One’ _
the comment was ‘referred for further consideration’ even though it clearly breaks no BBC house rules _ this use of a ‘get-out clause’ also means that the person who posted the comment receives no official recognition by BBC that their comment was removed _ Moderators were warned in comment #97 that unless the comment was replaced in a timely manner that a formal complaint would be logged with the BBC _
antiBBCTrust requires a CLEAR explanation as to the exact reason the comment was removed AND SIMULTANEOUSLY_ an explanation as to why ‘comments referred for further consideration’ are NEVER replaced_ nor those who have made the comments contacted BEFORE the post is ‘referred’_ as is the requirement when comments are removed _
if BBC moderators continue to remove public comments in this ‘underhand’ manner then it will become necessary to log these incidents and eventually seek an explanation for what amounts to a  ‘hidden’ BBC policy _
__________________________________

160512 _ comment ‘removed for further consideration’ (posted by antiBBCTrust)
post #52 on Children’s shows to leave BBC One
“The BBC Trust document was its final report into cost-saving plans known internally as “Delivering Quality First””.

LOL (for Laugh Out Loud!)
BBC MUST REMEMBER WHAT QUALITY MEANS
BEFORE THEY CAN DELIVER IT
under the Thompson regime Truth & Quality are attributes BBC directors and staff have become increasingly estranged from _
this BBC Trust report is known ‘externally’ as ‘Making Money First’

160512 posted by antiBBCTrust
post #97  on Children’s shows to leave BBC One
comment #52
“This comment has been referred for further consideration”

this is ‘BBCspeak’ for _ the comment doesn’t break the rules but mediators don’t like it anyway _
BE ADVISED _ this comment AND comment #52 are logged and linked to from another website _ if comment #52 is not ‘processed’ by your supervisor quickly and returned BECAUSE IT BREAKS NO RULES_ then a formal complaint will follow

160512 posted by antiBBCTrust
post #179  on Children’s shows to leave BBC One
how can a report which focusses on cost-cutting be given a title ‘Putting Quality First’ _ it’s literally ‘ a contradiction in terms’

BBC & BBCTrust would indeed do well to focus on Quality_ which has become ‘lost’ to them in the last decade
BEFORE you remove this post for ‘further consideration’ consider 113 error reports submitted to BBCNews website in last 7 weeks_ EVIDENCE OF LOST QUALITY!!
____________________________________

BE ADVISED _ the written contents of this form have been copied and logged for future reference _ a response WILL BE required by anti-BBCTrust before this matter can be forwarded to a level where it can be given appropriate consideration _

____________________________________

BBC REPLY
Thank you for contacting the BBC.

As your post #52 contained strong, potentially libellous, criticism it was referred by our moderators to the editorial team, they didn’t think it broke any house rules and so you will find that it has been reinstated.
Your post #97 was failed for off-topic as it was not about the story but moderation decisions.
Your post #179 was passed by our moderation team.
Our apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Regards,
Central Communities Team.

ANTI-BBCTRUST RESPONSE

NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!

my correspondence with your team was not an appeal but to initiate a formal complaint against you_ whilst it is becoming increasingly obvious that BBC staff and management have a multitude of problems and issues with understanding and/or reproducing the English language_ i would have thought the first sentence of my original communication made my purpose entirely clear!
nevertheless_ i will write the essence of my complaint again_ in the sincere hope that a second reading will assist you in directing this correspondence to the pertinent managerial level_ where your staff policy of removing comments without due cause can be reviewed and hopefully prohibited in the future _

your underhand use of a ‘get-out clause’ to remove comments which are ‘disliked’ by BBC staff means that the person who posted the comment receives no official recognition by BBC that their comment has been removed _
in the cases we have on record_ those comments are NOT normally replaced _ and i submit that_ regardless of your ‘explanation’  as to the circumstances of this particular incident_ the ONLY reason BBC staff replaced the comment on this occasion is because they realised i did as i had promised by initiating this formal complaint _  the evidence is quite clear that a mere ‘threat of formal complaint’ as posted in comment #97 was not enough to induce staff to replace comment #52 ‘in a timely manner’ _

according to BBC standard complaints forms_ the BBC aim to respond within 14 days _  therefore_ if i have not heard more from the BBC_ specific to this incident_ on or before 30th May 2012_ i will assume that the Central communities team has managed to ‘lose’ my formal complaint_ at which point i will automatically proceed to Stage 2 of the BBC complaints process _

i sincerely hope that we are all now entirely clear that this correspondence constitutes a formal complaint against the BBC moderation team_ their supervisors_ and whoever else is involved in this hidden policy of removing ‘disliked’ comments without going through the formal process that comment removal usually requires _

i hope that my persistence in this particular matter will now be taken seriously _ but in order to emphasise that determination i will further explain that anti-BBCTrust blog began SOLELY as a reaction to unfair practices by the moderation staff of BBC ‘Have Your Say’ over the last 2 years _  it is my intention to seek a change in these practices_ to such an extent that BBC will formally acknowledge the removal of all comments AND commit to their timely replacement after it has been SWIFTLY determined that no rules have in fact been broken _
these changes in policy and the formalization of rules to prevent BBC staff acting ‘unethically’_ will undoubtedly require bringing this to the attention of people who are probably above your pay-grade _ your role in this process is simply to ensure that this correspondence arrives where it is meant to go _ you would be well-advised to carry out this simple task expeditiously (that means ‘quickly and without any further prevarication’) _

a copy of this and all further correspondence concerning this matter is published on the antiBBC blog _

BBC REPLY

Thank for your email.
Your initial email appeared to a complaint that you comment had been referred for further consideration and that ‘this use of a ‘get-out clause’ also means that the person who posted the comment receives no official recognition by BBC that their comment was removed.’
This is not the case.  If a comment has been referred then it has not been removed from the site but temporarily hidden from view while an editorial decision is being made as to whether the comment breaks house rules.
The comment is then either approved for publication or removed from the site and the user sent an email informing them that their comment has been removed for breaking house rules.  It is not possible for the moderators to remove a comment from the site without a moderation email being generated and sent to the user.

For a better understanding of how the moderation process works, please take some time to read through the relevant FAQs –
What happens to my post when it is sent to the moderation queue? Why do some posts take longer in the moderation queue than others?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#queue

‘Sometimes, a comment may be referred for further investigation to a supervisor, host, editor or the Central Communities Team, who are responsible for moderation across all BBC services. Your post will be hidden while a decision is pending and the time taken to make this decision will depend on the investigation necessary.’

Why was my post removed without any explanation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#explain
‘The BBC always explains moderation decisions via email to make the process as fair and transparent as possible. In fact, the moderation system is set up in such a way that it is not possible for a moderator to remove a post without sending an email with a brief explanation of the reason for failing the post.’

Please note that this feedback form is only for appealing against moderation decisions.  If you wish to make a formal complaint about the actions of the hosts or moderation team then you will need to do so via the BBC Complaints site – http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Regards,
Central Communities Team.

Further to our previous email please note that this account has now been restricted for posting with multiple accounts, which is considered disruptive behaviour under the house rules that you agreed to abide by on registering your account –
‘Abusive or disruptive behaviour is not allowed on BBC blogs. This includes:
– Using multiple accounts to disrupt boards, annoy users, or to avoid pre-moderation.
Users who seriously or repeatedly demonstrate such behaviour may have their accounts pre-moderated or permanently restricted and will not be allowed to return.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#f
Your initial account has not been restricted.
Regards,
Central Communities Team.

ANTI-BBCTRUST RESPONSE

you might want to edit your sentences before posting them
Thank for your email.
Your initial email appeared to a complaint that you comment had been referred for further consideration…

how DO you people manage to get yourselves employed by the BBC! _ the only conclusion to be drawn  is that BBC standards have indeed reached an abysmal and entirely unacceptable level _ all the more reason for anti-BBCTrust to continue it’s campaign _
having transcribed your ‘communication’ into proper English_ i’m given to understand that your office does not consider a formal complaint to have been initiated _ rest assured that will now be remedied in short order and will include a paragraph on the lack of clarity in the moderation rules concerning who to contact and for which purpose _ the guidelines are definitely not clear on this _
as to the blocking of antiBBCTrust ‘Have Your Say’ account_ so be it!
these accounts had two totally seperate purposes _ but i’ll be happy to put psy_warrior to good use on anti-BBC matters_ since that is your requirement _
personally speaking_ if i was BBC and had to choose between blocking one account or the other _ i would have most definitely blocked the one that you’ve allowed!
by simply ‘Googling’ ‘psy_warrior’ you’ll probably find you agree! >: )

_____________________________________________________________________________

# 270412 _ contact form on BBC Magazine article _
Viewpoint: Why did Claire Squires’ marathon death strike such a chord?

how unfortunate that BBC have written two articles about Claire Squires sad death in the London Marathon_ but have also chosen not to put a link to her charity page _
creating that link is actually even more pertinent because both BBC articles would probably not have been written at all_ were it not for the generosity of the British public who have made donations to her page as a mark of respect for her sacrifice _
one is forced to ask whether BBC would have chosen to include a link had Ms Squires been raising money for BBC’s own ‘Children in Need’  charity_ rather than her chosen benefactor_ The Samaritans_ also a worthy cause _
naturally i don’t expect this comment to be published_ but wouldn’t it be nice if writing it induced BBC management to organise for a link to be created _
_____________________________________________________________________________

# 230412 _ BBC complaint form and email
from donotreply2.moderation@bbc.co.uk _ to anti.BBCTrust@gmail.com
pertaining to a public comment left on a BBC Sports blog
Moderation Reference ID: 33044066

BBC moderators can’t seriously leave a post active which endorses the use of live ammunition_ either in Bahrain or London!! i also find it very strange that the list of house rules which i consulted prior to forwarding this complaint is not the same as the list which i am supposed to select from whilst actually making the complaint _  what happened to ‘may cause offence to others’ etc etc??
the person who wrote this post is clearly ignorant of the fact that many people have been incarcerated and tortured in Bahrain SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE ON-DUTY DOCTORS and that the majority of protests have been made to try and secure the release of the innocent _
i am shocked that this post is still extant_ and i assure BBC staff that if it remains so i will be taking this complaint much further _ in my opinion the post should not only be removed but the person who wrote it should be warned about what they express on a public forum _ this post is now being monitored and the post and this complaint have been recorded in case further action is required

Dear BBC Visitor,
Further to your complaint about some of the content on a BBC web site (reference number P33044066), we have decided that it does indeed contravene the House Rules and have removed the offending material.
Thank you for pointing this out to us.
Regards,
BBC Moderation Team.

_____________________________________________________________________________

# 26-270312 _ email exchange
from newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk _ to anti.BBCTrust@gmail.com
270312 1621 GMT ( reference #270312 01 spelling error )
Dear Mr Mikhail,
Thank you for your email.
According to the OED, “baulk” is acceptable usage in this context.
Best regards,
BBC News website
note_ this is only the second time i’ve been contacted by staff from newsonline errors _ on BOTH occasions after the error had already been corrected _ and where both authors weren’t absolutely correct either _
the email arrived AFTER i had already contacted BBC again when it was apparent no alteration would be made _ in this second message i included evidence from Hull University _
notes_ error still uncorrected at 1650 GMT _
BBC updated from antiBBC with evidence from Hull University_
Hull University website _ difference between baulk and balk

baulk is incorrectly used for the verb in the context of Mr Hayes’ quote on this article _
whilst the two spellings are interchangeable as nouns the correct spelling for the verb is ‘balk’
(included with update _ )
instead of posting the pertinent BBC address in the field below
i have taken the liberty of including the web address of the page from Hull

the next time i checked_ at 2000 GMT_ the error had finally been corrected
_____________________________________________________________________________

# 23-240312 _ email exchange _
from <name withheld>@bbc.co.uk _ to anti.BBCTrust@gmail.com
230312 1428 GMT (reference #230312 02 rewrite required)
Dear Mr Mikhail,
Could you please explain in what way the sentence does not make sense? I
have read it several times and it seems fine to me.
<name withheld>, BBC website

from anti.BBCTrust@gmail.com _
240312 0305 GMT
dear <name withheld>
first and before anything _ and in that you are the first member of BBC staff to have graced me with their august presence_ i will take this moment to welcome you to anti-BBC Trust and to thank you _
as to your query _
i must confess that after i had read the original sentence several times_ its clarity gradually increased_ so i am not in disagreement with your findings_ though i think your use of the term “fine” might be a shade too ‘optimistic’ _  i note that the sentence in question has now been changed to ‘Lt Cdr Molyneux, a father of four originally from Wigan, tackled Donovan and was shot in the head at very close range.‘ which seems to me somewhat ‘finer’ (if you will)_ in that a delineation between two names in one sentence is better than one person’s name and another’s age _
i wonder_ since you are here_ whether you would be good enough to pursue a general enquiry of mine_ which unfortunately seems to have got ‘lost’_  i would not ask but i do assure you that i have tried to pursue the matter myself_ including by phone _  sadly_ all i have received so far are auto-responses_ including an email from ‘Five Live Investigates’ which i admit has left me somewhat confused_ in that i used a general enquiry form on the BBC News website to send my query _  my knowledge of Five Live Anything amounts to nothing more than ‘hearsay’ and it certainly was not my intention to make contact with them nor ask them specifically anything!
in order to create as little inconvenience as possible i will copy / paste my query below _ if you could expedite its arrival at a pertinent destination i really would be most grateful _
thank you again for contacting anti-BBCTrust _
# 110312 _ general enquiry_
request for information logged at general comments page
hello
i am carrying out research for an article about media usage of the terms ‘Islamist’ and ‘Muslim’ and have already begun a statistical breakdown of BBC reports that use both words _
i want to offer BBC the opportunity to respond to two questions
(A) does BBC recognise a formulated difference between the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islamist’
(B) who is responsible for deciding which of these terms to use in any article/project

if this is not the correct location or medium to find the answers i’m looking for_ please would you be kind enough to let me know where i should more suitably direct my enquiry _

with regards to the BBC comments below this form _ i have no objection to my letter being published by BBC as it will very shortly be published at this location _ bbcdistrust.wordpress.com/blog-vs-bbc/

i look forward to what i hope will be a fairly quick response _ the article will be written as soon as my research is complete and it would be unfortunate if i felt it necessary to proceed without BBC input
thank you for your time
(signature included)

note _ for the sake of brevity this email exchange has been shortened _ a synopsis being that the exchange continued briefly_ ending with the member of BBC staff kindly and graciously offering to be available for contact in case further assistance was required  (thank you)
_____________________________________________________________________________

# 140312 _ email enquiry
_
request for information logged at general comments page
this passage is included at the bottom of an email i received from BBC _

“This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.”

if this passage refers to a legalized restriction then you need to include the relevant statute_ paragraph and section that prevents my re-use of an email sent to me _
also be advised that my contacting the BBC about this matter IN NO WAY constitutes my agreement to what appear to be independently contrived BBC restrictions

_____________________________________________________________________________

# 140312 _ ongoing enquiry _

request for information logged at general comments page
i used this form on 11th March 2012 to make a general enquiry concerning research i am carrying out prior to writing an article about BBC use of certain words _ and for some reason best known to yourselves i received an auto-response from ‘Five Live Investigates’!!!
having waited 3 days for this apparent error to be rectified by the BBC_ possibly with a clarifying email_ i finally telephoned the BBC helpline which “owing to high volumes of calls” politely referred me back to this form _
all of the details concerning this ‘merry go round’ are now posted here _ https://bbcdistrust.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/bbc-best-practice-at-its-worst/
“it’s probably in everyone’s best interest if i write this post as an ongoing story
because i don’t want to jump into ‘wrong conclusions’ straight away and everyone is capable of making bad mistakes_ including errors of judgement _
that’s all fine and completely understandable _ on the condition that due apologies are made and the matter rectified as well as it may be”

i also think it might be in everyone’s best interest if someone at the BBC took the time to read the rest of the post _  thank you
______________________________________________________________________________
# 110312 _ email from ‘5 Live Investigates’ to anti.BBCTrust@gmail
Hello,
Thank you writing to 5 live Investigates. Due to the high volume of mail we receive we cannot respond to every email, but if you have submitted a suggestion for a story, it will be treated in confidence.
To find out more about our forthcoming programmes, visit the 5 live Investigates website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tl99q
To ensure you don’t miss an episode, you can subscribe to the 5 live Investigates podcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/5linvestigates
Or you can listen again using the BBC iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer
You can also follow us on Facebook — search for 5 live Investigates.
We’re also on Twitter — @5LInvestigates.
If you want to make a complaint about 5 live or 5 live sports extra then comments need to be sent to us via the BBC Complaints Unit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
To make a complaint, phone 03700 100 222 (UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training).
Or you can write to the following address:
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UR
Regards,
The 5 live Investigates Team

note _ despite best efforts anti-BBCTrust has been unable to ascertain the exact purpose of this message_ in that it has been sent from a specific programme_ albeit as an auto-response _ this matter can only be defined as ‘ongoing’
______________________________________________________________________________

# 110312 _ general enquiry_
request for information logged at general comments page
hello
i am carrying out research for an article about media usage of the terms ‘Islamist’ and ‘Muslim’ and have already begun a statistical breakdown of BBC reports that use both words _
i want to offer BBC the opportunity to respond to two questions
(A) does BBC recognise a formulated difference between the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islamist’
(B) who is responsible for deciding which of these terms to use in any article/project

if this is not the correct location or medium to find the answers i’m looking for_ please would you be kind enough to let me know where i should more suitably direct my enquiry _

with regards to the BBC comments below this form _ i have no objection to my letter being published by BBC as it will very shortly be published at this location _ bbcdistrust.wordpress.com/blog-vs-bbc/

i look forward to what i hope will be a fairly quick response _ the article will be written as soon as my research is complete and it would be unfortunate if i felt it necessary to proceed without BBC input
thank you for your time
(signature included)

______________________________________________________________________________

# 110312 _ formal complaint lodged
anti-BBC Trust blog has lodged 5 spelling/grammar corrections in 12 hours _
whilst 4 were responded to in a timely manner the last has so far been ignored _  if this is because BBC editing staff are reacting adversely to being ‘pestered’ then that attitude should be dealt with by their line mangers _
be advised_ the anti-BBC Trust blog WILL continue to send corrections to the BBC website as and when they are discovered and regardless of how many corrections have already been lodged _ if it is found that they are not being responded to_ for whatever reason_ then the process of an official complaint will be started at the BBC Trust _
if BBC staff don’t like receiving multiple complaints/corrections then they should adopt a more professional attitude to publishing the English language correctly _

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s